I'm not a lawyer, but we really can't be accountable for other
people's website especially when they fail to update in a timely
manner or update at all. I think
answers.com is reasonably quick. It
picked up all my changes to the mummy article when I made them, but if
something is heavily edited (like Seigenthaler or Bush) it may simply
lack behind, because whatever it does, it cannot be as up-to-date as
Wikipedia itself.
Mgm
On 12/13/05, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was thinking about something during the whole
Seigenthaler thing,
about the mirrors of wikipedia (I apologise if this has already been
discussed, if it has, I haven't seen it). One of his big complaints
was that even though wikipedia removed his information instantly it
stayed on several of our mirrors such as
answers.com and others.
Legally speaking, can wikipedia be held accountable for that? My gut
feeling is that we can't (mostly because we shouldn't be) because
thats the other servers' problem. That is, if they hold old, now
nonexisting on wikipedia libellous claims, can we be sued for that? It
seems like a case of "Hey, we removed it long ago, if you have a
problem with other servers, take it up with them".
Can anyone clarify the legal aspects of this for a poor, legally
illitarate wikipedian?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l